WHAT IF SCOTUS RULES IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE?

    55

    By Susan Stamper Brown

    During a reception hosted by the group “Freedom to Marry,” White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett praised President Obama for his huge part in accelerating the gay marriage cause heard by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) last week. “The arc of the moral universe,” said Jarrett, “bent a little faster than even we thought it would.” The “moral arc” regarding gay marriage cannot be bent without harmful consequence, but you’d never know that listening to Ms. Jarrett.

    Indeed. The arc is bent — by intensely motivated activists pulling on it with all their might, demanding SCOTUS re-define the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. What’s next? When anger motivates, enough is never enough.

    The bigger danger, though, is the resulting potential loss of freedom, something one of our Canadian neighbors, William Whatcott, fully understands. Speaking up about his Christian views regarding homosexuality and abortion by way of graphically honest pamphlets led to six arrests in Saskatchewan, 20 in Ontario, a six-month jail stint for protesting too close to an abortion clinic in Toronto and a $17,500 fine from the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal for distributing material deemed “hateful.”

    On February 28, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Whatcott. Justice Marshall Rothstein wrote Canadians’ right to freedoms of speech and religion are unlimited except when it is conveyed via “hate speech.” Maybe a bit contradictory, given the words “unlimited” and “except” are mutually exclusive and the definition of hate speech is dependent upon those in power.

    The court considered various cases including one suggesting that certain practices cannot be separated from a person’s identity, therefore “condemnation of the practice is a condemnation of the person.” Additionally, Justice Rothstein defined hate speech as targeting a particular group as “a menace that could threaten the safety and wellbeing of others, makes references to respected sources (in this case the Bible) to lend credibility to negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred.”

    Jesus Christ himself could’ve been charged with hate speech crimes in Canada having defined marriage as between a man and woman, called people hypocrites, serpents, sinners and vipers while referencing scripture.

    And we’re not far off from that now in the U.S. as we await the SCOTUS decision this June. Clearly, free speech is not on the minds of intolerant activists who recently castigated two gay hotel proprietors, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, who did the unthinkable by hosting a quaint reception for presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz in April to discuss foreign policy. Activists threatened a boycott to punish the two for sharing snacks and conversation with what they perceive as the enemy. Given the unmitigated backlash, the two relented. And repented, apologizing on Facebook for “hurting the gay community” although Mr. Reisner said they “spent most of the time talking about national security issues…regarding the defense of Israel to ISIS and Iran.” Oh, the irony, that a discussion mostly about how a potential President Cruz’s foreign policy might protect Americans from the real enemy, rather than an illogically perceived one.

    One thing is for sure – even if SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage, the real “moral arc” remains constant. What is deemed legal is not necessarily right in the eyes of the One who created the laws of the universe. Justice Kennedy rightly questioned the appropriateness of the Court to abandon the definition of marriage. He said marriage “has been with us for millennia” making it “very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh well, we know better.’” We do know better, but the wide-eyed optimist I no longer am can only hope that those in power protect what is not really theirs to unravel. Anyhow, research shows that traditionally married people live longer, are healthier, happier, and have more satisfying sex. I guess God knew what he was doing when he created Adam and Eve.

    RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

    55 COMMENTS

    1. The mob ruled in Indiana and will probably rule in the Supreme court. The question is, after the Court ruling, what will be the definition of marriage?

      • You can tell commonsense is losing the argument when he calls the judicial system – at the level of the SUPREME COURT – mob rule.

        • The mob affected the legislators in Indiana on RFRA and they caved. The mob affected SCOTUS on Obamacare and they caved, even citing the penalty for not having insurance as a tax when the government argued it wasn’t a tax.
          After SCOTUS caves on homosexual marriage, what will the definition of marriage be?

          • C-S,

            SCOTUS will be performing their duty according to the law of the land – The Constitution.

            Look, we get it. You lost. On the wrong side. You need to save face. So rather than accept the Constitution, you create preposterous excuses like “they caved.” Jeeez.

            • ….oh, and I forgot to add “Commonsense, your reading of the Constitution is in error.”

    2. This author can’t figure out which road to take, so she takes BOTH

      a) I know what’s right and I’m gonna cite Adam & Eve in a legal case for validation? Seriously?
      b) the law is on my side.

      Tell you what.

      Let’s stick to the LAW (Constitutional Law)…:

      Citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law, including marriage law for both interracial and same-sex couples….and you are not allowed to discriminate and seize the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution for those citizens.

      Simple enough.

    3. If SCOTUS has the power to define the meaning of a word, which they don’t, according to that document liberals despise, what says they have to stop with the word “marriage”? This is what they are doing, correct? In their decision, if they opine in favor of homosexual marriage, will they not have to define the age of consenting marital partners, also? One state can’t have a legal age of sixteen when it’s neighboring state says eighteen. Wouldn’t that be discrimination? Aren’t civil rights equal for all citizens?

      We’ll no longer look to the Constitution for our laws, rather we will decide everything by Constitutional law, which can change as 5 lawyers decide to change it. We will be governed whim, not written words.

      • We have come to a time when law is the precedence for the Constitution not the Constitution the precedence for the law. The Constitution is being hammered into what feels right and is most popular. That is indeed the definition of “mob rule” as CS stated.

        I predict that we will see the federalization of marriage as the SCOTUS will decree by stretching an underlying principle into an overriding right just as the have with abortion and religious expression. We will then see those who hold a different definition of marriage marched before the courts and forced to renounce their religious values or face a heavy penalty. The baker in Oregon was fined $135,000 for declining to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. We will also see the definition of marriage as two individuals fall when those who practice polygamy demand their equal rights. How can they be denied the right when we have defined marriage as consent and commitment?

        • You too I-E. You can’t have it both ways. When it’s useful, you wrap yourself in the Constitution. When it’s not, you use piece of crap infantile analysis like this: “…when law is the precedence for the Constitution not the Constitution the precedence for the law.”

          The Constitution is the LAW. Even for gay and dark skinned citizens.

          And for you too, notwithstanding all of your “well my church says this, and my church says that, blah, blah, blah…..” none of which matters. It doesn’t matter what your church says, only the law.

          Hopefully, your church follows the law otherwise you world is one of anxiety and fear because we have the Constitution to protect us from the wild wild west Westboro Baptist Church types. All I know is THIS: Thank God for SCOTUS Indiana Enoch, or we would have to abide by your church’s laws, whatever those are.

          This is all real simple. You complain because you’re on the wrong side of the LAW. Otherwise I-E, you are wailing because you’ve gotten your foot caught in one of your own traps.

          • QD, I am not going to respond to statements I have never made and you playing the bigot card.

            • INDIANA ENOCH:

              This IS principally the problem you know.

              You fail to see and acknowledge that you’re beliefs about denying equal access to gay couples is bigotry. The card is in play.

              Look, this problem continued to exist for a far too long of a time when civil rights laws and equal access laws finally started to recognize access for black Americans. There were those who insisted to their death that sharing lives and granting equal access with black Americans was wrong, went agains their faith, violated their traditions, history and heritage and was plain against God’s will. Some of them likely still alive, I guess. But you are one of those guys when it comes to bigotry against gay citizens….

            • QD, my views on this issue are not based on bigotry. Check your own closet for that.

              The government created a conflict between homosexual and religion when it allowed activist to change the definition of marriage to love. I warned that it would result in this problem just like I said it would result in the federaluzation of marriage.

              But you’re so busy running around squawking “bigot” that you can’t see the real problem. Equality would be the government getting out of the marriage business not government forcing religion to get into the same sex marriage business.

            • Look, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re just wrong on the law Indiana Enoch.

              Your beliefs match EXACTLY the position the Piggie Park restaurant owner held – “sincerely held religious beliefs”…and ruled in error by the Supreme Court….just insert gay married couples for black Americans. Both positions are perfectly parrallel and are both are bigoted. This is 100% accurate.

            • Well thsnks for allowing me to have an opinion, but when you reduce it to a simplistic representation that does not represent my views, then you have expressed your deeply seated bigotry not mine. Declining to be involved in an event which violates Christ’s definition of marriage is religious conviction not bigotry. Who is bing harmed $135,000 for declining to bake a wedding cake?

      • DA, You’re gonna have to decide, am I a conservative who who claims that means you’re a strict Constitutionalist,

        or not?

        You want it both ways. Uh…can’t do that.! (“Liberals hate the Constitution. Me too when I disagree with what it says, but I really love it. No wait. I hate it. Ugh.”….. I guess you’re the liberal now disaffected.)

        • You’re the one who posted “let’s stick to the LAW (Constitutional Law)…:

          You said nothing about “sticking” to the Constitution, did you? It’s a document you wish would go away so we could be ruled by lawyers and politicians, isn’t it? And you claim I want it both ways, which is a claim you have no way of proving, isn’t it?

          You have no credibility and you contradict your own posts, don’t you?

          • DA…..What? Methinks you are failing to distract from being wrong. I said the Constitution is the law of the land, even when it supports the rights of gay citizens equal access to marriage law at the State level. Windsor tipped the scales on this, SCOTUS is preparing to finalize it. Simple enough.

            You appear to think the law is something other than the Constitution….like….what you would prefer. In fact, you use words like SCOTUS “opining” the law to dismiss clearly established Constitutional law that SCOTUS interprets it! But it don’t work that way.

    4. How does letting a gay couple getting married have any real lasting effects on the rest of us. What they do behind closed doors is THEIR business and anyone who’s peaking into their bedroom window needs a 12 gage shoved down their throat or up the other end. Peeping Tom’s bother me more than some gay lady who’s not bothering me. There are the minority and won’t reproduce their genetic material. Thankfully Biology still needs and X and Y chromosome to form a perfect union. Yea they can adopt kids but those kids are lucky to have someone that takes care of them even if they are gay. That’s better than not having anyone to take them in and care for them. Unless you people that are so homophobic want to adopt some more kids and raise them. Besides what ever genetic material that made them gay is not being reproduced so they will forever be a minority of the human population. As long as they don’t mess with me I could care less what they do. But I’ll tell them to get a room if I see them doing sexual stuff out in public view just as I would a straight couple humping on each other in public view. And Yes I still get disgusted when I see too guys holding hands and even want to puke when I think of what they do when no one else is looking. But they are not doing any harm to me normally. So live and let live I guess.

      I guess a lot of people have mixed emotions on this issue.

      • This issue passed the “what they do behind closed doors” long ago. It’s now to the point where children are being taught that homosexual activity is “normal”.

        • Yeah normal just like Left handedness, or being Jewish, or having epilepsy, or red hair, or being bald or having birthmarks. All once thought to be evil or being cause by demons. You’re a knuckledragging moron.

            • that explains why you are so fearful, doesn’t it? Your knowledge of the Constitution is so lacking, it is fearful. And you probably vote, which is horrifying.

            • DISAFFECTED….you’re transparently trying to invert again (failing !!). It is obvious, clear and DAMNING that you’re scared of same-sex couples and same-sex marriage, D-A – you are a perfect example of ignorance breeds fear.

              Oh….I’m reading the Constitution fine. The SCOTUS is agreeing w/ me in fact, that gay marriage rights are real and Constitutional (cite: Windsor…and the upcoming ruling in June…AND that Indiana GOP had to amend RFRA in the shadow of SCOTUS’ rulings on gay marriage.)

              How’s that ignorance working for you DISAFFECTED?

          • Being left handed to red headed are no different than being gay, but they do not give you special status either.

            • Yes only superstitious, warmongering, homophobic, Xenophobic, white, RW gun nuts, and bigots are granted special status in your narcissistic myopic dreamworld.

            • Here it is. A perfect example of how wrong on this reading of the Constitution you are I-E.

              No they don’t grant special status, Indiana Enoch. But US citizens with those qualities ARE guaranteed equal rights and equal access no differently than other citizens.

              (Smiling….)

            • Really good to see that you’re is exempt from the CCO’s new and improved guidelines. It’s a good indication of how important your comment is. Troll.

            • QD, when we have changed the definition to marriage to two consenting adults, not closely related, and committed to one another, but deny access to marriage to more than two or those closely related, or we penalize those cohabitating for not be married, it is not equality. When we say sexual liberty, which is not protected in the Constitution, trumps spiritual liberty, which is protected by the Constitution, then our Constitution has become meaningless and is no longer the document by which we all co-exist.

            • Ain’t it a B when certain people get rights and privileges granted to them while others are left out in the cold.?

              BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

            • No, it’s a B when sexual liberty trumps spiritual liberty and a right to a wedding cake can destroy a person not wanting to be forced into celebrating that violates the person’s convictions. It would almost like you being fined $135,000 for hating Christianity except the baker didn’t hate the gay couple for being gay and your bigotry is condoned.

        • While it’s been good for the church to reconsider it’s views on homosexuality, this issue was not started by Christians and the resulting rift was created by the government conservatives and liberals, creating bad laws. Worse will be the SCOTUS decrying federal same sex marriage. Supporters of same sex marriage should also reconsider their bigotry against religion and recognize that sexual liberty trumping spiritual liberty threatens all constitutional liberties.

          • It’s not bigotry to call bigotry out and try to eliminate it. Refusing to ‘service’ gay people or their events is bigotry pure and simple. I’m all for both the person and the event being serviced, maybe until they smile like an old alligator. To deny gay folks services most of us can get for the asking or a $20 bill is simply not right. ‘Service the Person and The Event’ — that’s what I always say. To pretend they are separate issues is untrue on its face.

            Couching bigotry in religion only hurts religion, perhaps that’s one reason many mainstream denominations are coming to a more rational view of the subject. The others will be brought screaming, kicking and sued to the party.

            Here is what a pretty good cross section of the local clergy think about it: http://www.courierpress.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/evansville-executive-interfaith-partnership-weighs-in-on-rfra_99714787

            Even a frog-pond stork has one leg to stand on. Those who would deny gay people rights available to others woke up the other day to discover they have none.

          • The only bigotry is when one in ignorance loaths and disrespect another’s convictions so much that he belives the person should be taken to financial whipping post and flogged into conformance. This ignorance blinds one from distinguishing between events and persons and confuses the ignoramus into believing he is defending the integrity of freedom by forcing frogs down a stark’s throat.

            When one is denied a place at a lunch counter because of who he is, he is a victim of discrimination. When one is forced to participate in an event despite his long held convictions, then he is a victim. When one is fined a life destroying $135,000 by the government because she declined participating in an event that violates her convictions, the Constitution has been violated.

            • I think that baker should most certainly not have been ‘taken to the … whipping post and flogged …’ , possibly spanked but most assuredly forced to eat her own foul cake. At $135,000 it sounds like Betty Crocker got off easy. If she can’t raise a million dollars through some crowdfunding scheme over her blatant discrimination she’s not worth a tablespoon full of yeast anyway. She should further be barred from going around an oven for 40 days and 40 nights.

              We don’t have any way of knowing if a person’s ‘personal convictions’ are true or contrived so we don’t give them a pass on following our laws. Whether the ‘personal convictions’ are actual or a ruse they do not constitute a valid framework for writing laws. They are merely one of the last thin reeds the discriminators can duck behind. New laws are coming and they must have teeth to dissuade errant bakers and such from discriminating against others. Personal convictions should, by definition, stay personal. When they enter the public/community realm the laws governing common decency in interaction with others will apply even to them.

            • The problem is that this line should not have to be cut. By changing the definition of marriage the government has created a conflict between sexual liberty and spiritual liberty. I don’t want to see the government deciding what love is and what one’s spiritual convictions are.

              Government marriage needs to go the way of Studebaker, keep what we have but don’t make anymore.

              Go Fund Me shut down a drive to help this woman.

        • She shouldn’t have to choose between Cesar and and Christ QD. That’s was the purpose of the First Amendment. And do keep in mind that along with religious freedom the First Amendment also protects freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to assemble. The word “hate” can undo religious liberty, it can undo liberties you cherish, but far be it for you to comprehend that.

    5. Throw some Gay marriage troll meat out there and IE is good for 15-20, maybe 30 comments.

      It is his honor and duty to get the last word in for christianity.

      • ….THIS is the problem BB.

        Indiana Enoch doesn’t speak for Christians.

        I’m a Christian. Christians make up 80% of America! Those who would deny civil rights and equal access to gay couples are bigots….sniveling and retreating into a dark corner hiding under the cloak of Christianity.

        A bigot is a bigot, even if he goes to a Christian church.

        • Please show me where I said I spoke for all Christians QD. The problem is that you can not engage me on this issue on a reasonable level so you must engage me on my character. The bigotry you see is your own hate.

          • I-E, for God’s sake. This is a preposterous discussion with you. You whine and complain about being branded a bigot, when the fact is, on this issue…you are a bigot. There’s no denying it anymore. You’ve had to resort to whining you’re being treated like a slave! You’ve had to resort to inverting that those who fail to agree with your bigotry, are the real bigots! You’ve become infantile. Of course you’re going to your death insisting gay couples have no right to marry. (Insert “interracial couples” in that sentence and you’ve joined the others who continue to believe in that kind of bigotry.) You’re a waste of time any more on this. Thank God for the Supreme Court to protect the country from your kind of bigotry ruling the day.

      • And it’s 20/20 that Brains the troll will be biting and hating on Christianity with little else to say.

        • There is nothing good to say about the Dark Ages practices and superstitions of christianity.

          Cosmology – Origin of the Universe WRONG

          Anthropology – Origin of Mankind WRONG

          Dominionism – Dangerous and WRONG

          Slavery – said it was OK as long as the slaves were from another land WRONG

          Sociology Child rearing. Said unruly children should be stoned to death WRONG

          Science – Denies the second law of thermodynamics, favors superstition and “tradition” over the scientific method. Promotes anti-intellectualism. WRONG

          Just like conservatism christianty is 0 for recorded history.

          Oh but you christians did give us raging homophobia, white privilege, colonialism, imperialism, Yehwah blessed genocide and perpetual war. Great job!

    6. http://christiannews.net/2013/08/31/accommodate-homosexuality-or-else-legal-group-warns-christian-businesses-face-real-threat/
      “Justice Richard C. Bosson, who wrote a concurring opinion, asserted that the Huguenins may freely live out their faith privately, but when it comes to running a public business, they will have to “pay the price” and check their Christian convictions at the door.”

      So when it concerns religious liberty, the Constitutional line is drawn at the door and only applies to the home, the pew, or heart for Christians and not the public square, but for homosexuals it bust through those doors and force their will on others who do not agree with them.

    Comments are closed.